Hemodynamic monitoring plays a fundamental role in the management of acutely ill patients. With increased concerns about the use of invasive techniques, notably the pulmonary artery catheter, to measure cardiac output, recent years have seen an influx of new, less-invasive means of measuring hemodynamic variables, leaving the clinician somewhat bewildered as to which technique, if any, is best and which he/she should use. In this consensus paper, we try to provide some clarification, offering an objective review of the available monitoring systems, including their specific advantages and limitations, and highlighting some key principles underlying hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients.

Bland-Altman analysis is used for assessing agreement between two measurements of the same clinical variable. In the field of cardiac output monitoring, its results, in terms of bias and limits of agreement, are often difficult to interpret, leading clinicians to use a cutoff of 30% in the percentage error in order to decide whether a new technique may be considered a good alternative. This percentage error of ± 30% arises from the assumption that the commonly used reference technique, intermittent thermodilution, has a precision of ± 20% or less. The combination of two precisions of ± 20% equates to a total error of ± 28.3%, which is commonly rounded up to ± 30%. Thus, finding a percentage error of less than ± 30% should equate to the new tested technique having an error similar to the reference, which therefore should be acceptable. In a worked example in this paper, we discuss the limitations of this approach, in particular in regard to the situation in which the reference technique may be either more or less precise than would normally be expected. This can lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn from data acquired in validation studies of new monitoring technologies. We conclude that it is not acceptable to present comparison studies quoting percentage error as an acceptability criteria without reporting the precision of the reference technique.

Perioperative fluid therapy remains a highly debated topic. Its purpose is to maintain or restore effective circulating blood volume during the immediate perioperative period. Maintaining effective circulating blood volume and pressure are key components of assuring adequate organ perfusion while avoiding the risks associated with either organ hypo- or hyperperfusion. Relative to perioperative fluid therapy, three inescapable conclusions exist: overhydration is bad, underhydration is bad, and what we assume about the fluid status of our patients may be incorrect. There is wide variability of practice, both between individuals and institutions. The aims of this paper are to clearly define the risks and benefits of fluid choices within the perioperative space, to describe current evidence-based methodologies for their administration, and ultimately to reduce the variability with which perioperative fluids are administered. Based on the abovementioned acknowledgements, a group of 72 researchers, well known within the field of fluid resuscitation, were invited, via email, to attend a meeting that was held in Chicago in 2011 to discuss perioperative fluid therapy. From the 72 invitees, 14 researchers representing 7 countries attended, and thus, the international Fluid Optimization Group (FOG) came into existence. These researches, working collaboratively, have reviewed the data from 162 different fluid resuscitation papers including both operative and intensive care unit populations. This manuscript is the result of 3 years of evidence-based, discussions, analysis, and synthesis of the currently known risks and benefits of individual fluids and the best methods for administering them. The results of this review paper provide an overview of the components of an effective perioperative fluid administration plan and address both the physiologic principles and outcomes of fluid administration. We recommend that both perioperative fluid choice and therapy be individualized. Patients should receive fluid therapy guided by predefined physiologic targets. Specifically, fluids should be administered when patients require augmentation of their perfusion and are also volume responsive. This paper provides a general approach to fluid therapy and practical recommendations.

A significant number of surgical patients are at risk of intra- or post-operative complications or both, which are associated with increased lengths of stay, costs, and mortality. Reducing these risks is important for the individual patient but also for health-care planners and managers. Insufficient tissue perfusion and cellular oxygenation due to hypovolemia, heart dysfunction or both is one of the leading causes of perioperative complications. Adequate perioperative management guided by effective and timely hemodynamic monitoring can help reduce the risk of complications and thus potentially improve outcomes. In this review, we describe the various available hemodynamic monitoring systems and how they can best be used to guide cardiovascular and fluid management in the perioperative period in high-risk surgical patients.

The present review of fluid therapy studies using balanced solutions versus isotonic saline fluids (both crystalloids and colloids) aims to address recent controversy in this topic. The change to the acid-base equilibrium based on fluid selection is described. Key terms such as dilutional-hyperchloraemic acidosis (correctly used instead of dilutional acidosis or hyperchloraemic metabolic acidosis to account for both the Henderson-Hasselbalch and Stewart equations), isotonic saline and balanced solutions are defined. The review concludes that dilutional-hyperchloraemic acidosis is a side effect, mainly observed after the administration of large volumes of isotonic saline as a crystalloid. Its effect is moderate and relatively transient, and is minimised by limiting crystalloid administration through the use of colloids (in any carrier). Convincing evidence for clinically relevant adverse effects of dilutional-hyperchloraemic acidosis on renal function, coagulation, blood loss, the need for transfusion, gastrointestinal function or mortality cannot be found. In view of the long-term use of isotonic saline either as a crystalloid or as a colloid carrier, the paucity of data documenting detrimental effects of dilutional-hyperchloraemic acidosis and the limited published information on the effects of balanced solutions on outcome, we cannot currently recommend changing fluid therapy to the use of a balanced colloid preparation.

Introduction: Total hip replacement is one of the most commonly performed major orthopaedic operations. Goal-directed therapy (GDT) using haemodynamic monitoring has previously demonstrated outcome benefits in high-risk surgical patients under general anaesthesia. GDT has never been formally assessed during regional anaesthesia. Methods: Patients undergoing total hip replacement while under regional anaesthesia were randomised to either the control group (CTRL) or the protocol group (GDT). Patients in the GDT group, in addition to standard monitoring, were connected to the FloTrac sensor/Vigileo monitor haemodynamic monitoring system, and a GDT protocol was used to maximise the stroke volume and target the oxygen delivery index to > 600 mL/minute/m². Results: Patients randomised to the GDT group were given a greater volume of intravenous fluids during the intraoperative period (means ± standard deviation (SD): 6,032 ± 1,388 mL vs. 2,635 ± 346 mL; P < 0.0001), and more of the GDT patients received dobutamine (0 of 20 CTRL patients vs. 11 of 20 GDT patients; P < 0.0003). The GDT patients also received more blood transfused during the intraoperative period (means ± SD: 595 ± 316 mL vs. 0 ± 0 mL; P < 0.0001), although the CTRL group received greater volumes of blood replacement postoperatively (CTRL patients 658 ± 68 mL vs. GDT patients 198 ± 292 mL; P < 0.001). Overall blood consumption (intraoperatively and postoperatively) was not different between the two groups. There were an increased number of complications in the CTRL group (20 of 20 CTRL patients (100%) vs. 16 of 20 GDT patients (80%); P = 0.05). These outcomes were predominantly due to a difference in minor complications (20 of 20 CTRL patients (100%) vs. 15 of 20 GDT patients (75%); P = 0.047). Conclusions: GDT applied during regional anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective total hip replacement changes intraoperative fluid management and may improve patient outcomes by decreasing postoperative complications. Larger trials are required to confirm our findings. Trial registration: SRCTN11616985